[freebilly]

Whatever editorial help she needs was minor compared to the succinct way she turned a couple of key phrases:

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics....

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.

Pretty Dang Great....

[Kansas58]

Truth be told?

I have a journalism degree, and I have ghost written for a few politicians -—

Sarah, I WILL TAKE THE JOB!

LOL

[Finny]

There are two kinds of editors. One kind makes changes -- usually by removing superfluous words -- to tighten and improve the copy, making it more comprehensible to readers. That type of editor is rare and valuable; writers read the editor's changes, slap themselves on the head, and say, "Why didn't I think of that?" Good writers learn a lot of secrets from cush editors. Writers love those kinds of editors because they make the writers look good.

The other kind of editor, much more common, makes changes for the same reason a dog lifts his leg on a bush or a fire hydrant: to make his mark. This kind of editor is prone to adding words to "clarify" things, making the piece more ponderous and confusing. This kind of editor typically mistakes typos for grammatical ignorance on the part of the writer. This type of editor is prone to subjective changes of words -- changing "myraid colors," for example, to "myriad of colors." Both are correct; one is more elegant.

Sarah's piece was succinct and successful in communicating the message. Any editing it "needs" is less for Palin or her readers, and more for the presuming editor's vanity.